Public school administrators have come under increasing pressure to be accountable for student outcomes. Some of the focus of this accountability has been on the assessment of teachers, and many districts have adopted instruments based on effective teaching research. These instruments, derived from the process-product literature of the 1970s, attempt to evaluate teaching based on observation of specific teaching behaviors. Performance-based teacher assessment is an ineffective and inappropriate means of evaluation because it does not truly assess teaching. Alternative methods of teacher assessment are needed to support professional development and encourage collegiality between teachers and administrators.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alexander Hamilton Institute.1986. Performance Appraisals: The Latest Legal Nightmare. ISBN 0-86604-203-2.NY: Author.
2.
BalzerW. K. and SulskyL. M.. 1992. “Halo and Performance Appraisal Research: A Critical Evaluation,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(6): 975–985.
3.
BanksC. G. and MurphyK. R.1985. “Toward Narrowing the Research-Practice Gap in Performance Appraisal,” Personnel Psychology, 38(2): 335–345.
4.
BlaseJ, 1991. “Analysis and Discussion: Some Concluding Remarks,” In BlaseJ. (ed.), The Politics of Life in Schools: Power, Conflict, and Cooperation, Newbury Park, CA: Corwin, pp. 237–255.
5.
BlockB.1992. “The Failure of State-Mandated Teacher Appraisal Systems,” Clearing House, 66(1):35–36.
6.
BradshawL. K.1996. Alternative Teacher Performance Appraisal in North Carolina: Developing Guidelines. A Report to the North Carolina Professional Practices Commission. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 400 255).
7.
BrandtR.1992. “On Research on Teaching: A Conversation with Lee Shulman,” Educational Leadership, 49(7): 14–19.
8.
BrandtR.1996. “On a New Direction for Teacher Evaluation: A Conversation with Tom McGreal,” Educational Leadership, 53(6): 30–33.
9.
BrekelmansM., WubbelsT. and CretonH.1990. “A Study of Student Perceptions of Physics Teacher Behavior,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27: 335–350.
10.
BryantM. and CurrinD.1995. “Views of Teacher Evaluation from Novice and Expert Evaluators,” Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 10: 250–262.
11.
BushH. K.Jr.1995. “Poststructuralism as Theory and Practice in the English Classroom,” Eric Digest (On-line). Retrieved May 20, 1998 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed387794.html (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 387 794).
12.
CapperC. and JamisonM.. 1993a. “Let the Buyer Beware: Total Quality Management and Educational Research and Practice,” Educational Researcher, 22(8): 25–30.
13.
CapperC. and JamisonM.1993b. “Outcomes-Based Education Reexamined: From Structural Functional ism to Poststructuralism,” Educational Policy,
14.
CooperR. and BurrellG.1988. “Modernism, Postmodernism and Organizational Analysis: An Introduction,” Organization Studies, 9(1): 91–112.
15.
CoulombeG.1994. “Remembering Madeline Hunter,” Clearing House 67:337–338.
16.
DelandshereG.1996. “From Static and Prescribed to Dynamic and Principled Assessment of Teaching,” Elementary School Journal, 97(2): 105–120.
17.
DowneyC. J., FraseL. E. and PetersJ. J.1994. The Quality Education Challenge.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
18.
EllettC.1997. “Classroom. Based Assessments of Teaching and Learning,” in StrongeJ. H. (ed.), Evaluating Teaching: A Guide to Current Thinking and Best Practice.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin, pp. 107–128.
19.
FarkasS. and JohnsonJ.1993 “From Good Will to Gridlock: The Politics of Education Reform,” Education Digest, 59: 4–8.
20.
FosterW.1987. “Educational Administration: A Critical Appraisal,” In GriffithsD. E., StoutR. T., and ForsythP. B. (eds.), Leaders for America's Schools, Berkeley, CA: McCutchan, pp. 68–81.
21.
FoxC. J. and ShirkeyK. A.1997. “Employee Performance Appraisal: The Keystone Made of Clay,” In BanC. and RiccucciN. M. (eds.), Public Personnel Management, New York: Longman, pp. 205–218.
22.
GayL. R.1996. Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Application. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
23.
GorharaJ. K.1987. Sixth Grade Students’ Perceptions of Good Teachers. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 359 164).
24.
GubaE. G. and LincolnY. S.. 1989. Fourth Generation Evaluation, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
25.
HarrisonW. and AthertonC.1992. The Attitude about Reality Scale: A Note on the Use of Logical Positivism as a Construct,” Journal of Social Psychology, 132: 335–342.
26.
HartoonianM.1991. “Good Education, Bad Politics: Practices and Priciples of Reform,” Education Digest, 57: 31–36.
27.
HelsbyG. and SaundersM.1993. “Taylorism, Tylerism and Performance Indicators: Defending the Indefensible?” Educational Studies, 19(1): 55–76.
28.
HoffmanR.1995, “Ten Reasons You Should be Using 360-Degree Feedback “ HR Magazine, 40: 82–86.
29.
HunterM, 1982. Mastery Teaching. El Segundo, CA: TIP Publications.
30.
Iran-NejadA.1995. “Constructivism as Substitute for Memorization in Learning: Meaning is Created by Learner,” Education, 116(t):16–33.
31.
LavelyC., BergerN. and FollmanJ.1992. “Actual Incidence of Incompetent Teachers,” Education Research Quarterly, 15(2)11–14.
32.
LongeneckerC. and NykodymN.1996. “Public Sector Performance Appraisal Effectiveness: A Case Study,” Public Personnel Management, 25: 151–165.
33.
MagestroP.1994. “Tribute to Madeline Hunter,” Educational Leadership, 51(7):83.
34.
ManattR. P.1997. “Feedback from 360 Degrees: Client-Driven Evaluation of School Personnel,” The School Administrator, 54(3):8–l3.
35.
MaroneyB. and BuckleyM.1992. “Does Research in Performance Appraisal Influence the Practice of Performance Appraisal? Regretfully Not!” Public Personnel Management, 21: 185–196.
36.
MarshallK.1996. “How I Confronted HSPS (Hyperactive Superficial Principal Syndrome) and Began to Deal with the Heart of the Matter,” Phi Delta Kappan, 77(5): 336–345.
McGrealT.1983. Successful Teacher Evaluation. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
39.
MeyerH.1975. “The Pay for Performance Dilemma,” Organizational Dynamics, 3(1): 39–50.
40.
MilkovichG. T. and BoudreauJ. W.1997. Human Resource Management, 8th Ed. Chicago: Irwin.
41.
PearceJ. L. and PorterL. W.1986. Employee Responses to Formal Performance Appraisal Feedback,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(2): 211–218.
42.
PetersonK. D.1995. Teacher Evaluation: A Comprehensive Guide to New Directions and Practices. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
43.
PetroskyA. and BishopE.1995. “A Practical Guide to Teacher Assessments,” Voices from the Middle, 2(4): 30–32.
44.
RooneyJ.1993. “Teacher Evaluation: No More “Super”vision,” Educational Leadership, 51(2): 43–44.
45.
RothenbergL. and HesslingP. A.1990. Applying the APA/AERA/NCME “Standards”: Evidence for the Validity and Reliability of Three Statewide Teaching Assessment Instruments. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 318 778), April.
46.
RousmaniereK.1997. City Teachers: Teaching and School Reform in Historical Perspective. New York: Teachers College Press.
47.
SchmokerM.1992. “What Schools Can Learn from Toyota of America,” Education Week, 11. Retrieved May 12, 1998 from the World Wide Web: http://www.edweek.org/ew/Vol-11/.
48.
ScrivenM.1988. Evaluating Teachers as Professionals. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 300 882).
49.
SearfossL. W. and EnzB. J.1996. “Can Teacher Evaluation Reflect Holistic Instruction?” Educational Leadership, 53(6): 38–41.
50.
ShankerA.1996. “Quality Assurance: What Must Be Done to Strengthen the Teaching Profession,” Phi Delat Kappan, 78(3): 220–224.
51.
StakeR.1989. “The Evaluation of Teaching,” in SimmonsH. and ElliottJ. (eds.), Rethinking Appraisal and Assessment, Bristol, PA: Open University Press, pp. 13–19.
52.
StrongeJ. H.1997. “Improving Schools through Teacher Evaluation,” in StrongeJ. H. (ed.), Evaluating Teaching: A Guide to Current Thinking and Best Practice, Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin, pp. 1–23.
53.
TuckerP. D. and KindredK. P.1997. “Legal Considerations in Designing Teacher Evaluation Systems,” in StrongeJ. H. (ed.), Evaluating Teaching: A Guide to Current Thinking and Best Practice, Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin, pp. 59–90.
54.
TuckmanB.1995. “Assessing Effective Teaching,” Peabody Journal of Education, 70(2): 127–138.
55.
UngerR. K., DraperR. D. and PendergrassM. L.1986. “Personal Epistemology and Personal Experience,” Journal of Social Issues, 42: 67–69.
56.
VinsonM.1996. “The Pros and Cons of 360-Degree Feedback: Making It Work,” Training and Development, 50(4): 11–12.
57.
WalenE. and DeRoseM.1993. “The Power of Peer Appraisals,” Educational Leadership, 51(2): 45–48.
58.
WebbK. M.1995. “Not Even Close: Teacher Evaluation and Teachers’ Personal Practical Knowledge,” Journal of Educational Thought/Revue de la Pensee Educative, 29(3): 205–226.
59.
WoodC. J.1992. “Toward More Effective Teacher Evaluation: Lessons from Naturalistic Inquiry,” NASSP Bulletin, 76(542): 52–59.
